Cargando…

A novel maturity index for assessing medical device startups

BACKGROUND: Startup companies in the healthcare sector often fail because they lack sufficient entrepreneurial, regulatory, and business development expertise. Maturity models provide useful frameworks to assess the state of business elements more systematically than heuristic assessments. However,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Richmond, Frances J., Zapotoczny, Grzegorz, Green, Brian, Lokappa, Sowmya, Rudnick, Katy, Espinoza, Juan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cambridge University Press 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9428664/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36106131
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2022.436
_version_ 1784779169180155904
author Richmond, Frances J.
Zapotoczny, Grzegorz
Green, Brian
Lokappa, Sowmya
Rudnick, Katy
Espinoza, Juan
author_facet Richmond, Frances J.
Zapotoczny, Grzegorz
Green, Brian
Lokappa, Sowmya
Rudnick, Katy
Espinoza, Juan
author_sort Richmond, Frances J.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Startup companies in the healthcare sector often fail because they lack sufficient entrepreneurial, regulatory, and business development expertise. Maturity models provide useful frameworks to assess the state of business elements more systematically than heuristic assessments. However, previous models were developed primarily to characterize the business state of larger nonmedical companies. A maturity index designed specifically for startup companies in the medical product sector could help to identify areas in which targeted interventions could assist business development. METHODS: A novel MedTech Startup Maturity Index (SMI) was developed by a collaborative team of academic and industry experts and refined through feedback from external stakeholders. Pediatric medical device startups associated with the West Coast Consortium for Technology & Innovation in Pediatrics (CTIP) were scored and ranked according to the SMI following semi-structured interviews. The CTIP executive team independently ranked the maturity of each company based on their extensive experiences with the same companies. RESULTS: SMI scores for 16 companies ranged from 1.2 to 3.8 out of 4. These scores were well aligned with heuristic CTIP rankings for 14 out of 16 companies, reflected by strong correlations between the two datasets (Spearman’s rho = 0.721, P = 0.002, and Kendall’s tau-b = 0.526, P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: The SMI yields maturity scores that correlate well with expert rankings but can be assessed without prior company knowledge and can identify specific areas of concern more systematically. Further research is required to generalize and validate the SMI as a pre-/post-evaluation tool.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9428664
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Cambridge University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94286642022-09-13 A novel maturity index for assessing medical device startups Richmond, Frances J. Zapotoczny, Grzegorz Green, Brian Lokappa, Sowmya Rudnick, Katy Espinoza, Juan J Clin Transl Sci Research Article BACKGROUND: Startup companies in the healthcare sector often fail because they lack sufficient entrepreneurial, regulatory, and business development expertise. Maturity models provide useful frameworks to assess the state of business elements more systematically than heuristic assessments. However, previous models were developed primarily to characterize the business state of larger nonmedical companies. A maturity index designed specifically for startup companies in the medical product sector could help to identify areas in which targeted interventions could assist business development. METHODS: A novel MedTech Startup Maturity Index (SMI) was developed by a collaborative team of academic and industry experts and refined through feedback from external stakeholders. Pediatric medical device startups associated with the West Coast Consortium for Technology & Innovation in Pediatrics (CTIP) were scored and ranked according to the SMI following semi-structured interviews. The CTIP executive team independently ranked the maturity of each company based on their extensive experiences with the same companies. RESULTS: SMI scores for 16 companies ranged from 1.2 to 3.8 out of 4. These scores were well aligned with heuristic CTIP rankings for 14 out of 16 companies, reflected by strong correlations between the two datasets (Spearman’s rho = 0.721, P = 0.002, and Kendall’s tau-b = 0.526, P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: The SMI yields maturity scores that correlate well with expert rankings but can be assessed without prior company knowledge and can identify specific areas of concern more systematically. Further research is required to generalize and validate the SMI as a pre-/post-evaluation tool. Cambridge University Press 2022-08-01 /pmc/articles/PMC9428664/ /pubmed/36106131 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2022.436 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Richmond, Frances J.
Zapotoczny, Grzegorz
Green, Brian
Lokappa, Sowmya
Rudnick, Katy
Espinoza, Juan
A novel maturity index for assessing medical device startups
title A novel maturity index for assessing medical device startups
title_full A novel maturity index for assessing medical device startups
title_fullStr A novel maturity index for assessing medical device startups
title_full_unstemmed A novel maturity index for assessing medical device startups
title_short A novel maturity index for assessing medical device startups
title_sort novel maturity index for assessing medical device startups
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9428664/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36106131
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2022.436
work_keys_str_mv AT richmondfrancesj anovelmaturityindexforassessingmedicaldevicestartups
AT zapotocznygrzegorz anovelmaturityindexforassessingmedicaldevicestartups
AT greenbrian anovelmaturityindexforassessingmedicaldevicestartups
AT lokappasowmya anovelmaturityindexforassessingmedicaldevicestartups
AT rudnickkaty anovelmaturityindexforassessingmedicaldevicestartups
AT espinozajuan anovelmaturityindexforassessingmedicaldevicestartups
AT anovelmaturityindexforassessingmedicaldevicestartups
AT richmondfrancesj novelmaturityindexforassessingmedicaldevicestartups
AT zapotocznygrzegorz novelmaturityindexforassessingmedicaldevicestartups
AT greenbrian novelmaturityindexforassessingmedicaldevicestartups
AT lokappasowmya novelmaturityindexforassessingmedicaldevicestartups
AT rudnickkaty novelmaturityindexforassessingmedicaldevicestartups
AT espinozajuan novelmaturityindexforassessingmedicaldevicestartups
AT novelmaturityindexforassessingmedicaldevicestartups